In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

This approach of not blaming Muslims in general but targeting “radicalisation” or simply “evil” may appear sensible and moderate, but in practice it makes the motivation of the killers in Manchester or the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015 appear vaguer and less identifiable than it really is. Such generalities have the unfortunate effect of preventing people pointing an accusing finger at the variant of Islam which certainly is responsible for preparing the soil for the beliefs and actions likely to have inspired the suicide bomber Salman Abedi.

The ultimate inspiration for such people is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis. This is an exclusive creed, intolerant of all who disagree with it such as secular liberals, members of other Muslim communities such as the Shia or women resisting their chattel-like status.

What has been termed Salafi jihadism, the core beliefs of Isis and al-Qaeda, developed out of Wahhabism, and has carried out its prejudices to what it sees as a logical and violent conclusion. Shia and Yazidis were not just heretics in the eyes of this movement, which was a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, but sub-humans who should be massacred or enslaved. Any woman who transgressed against repressive social mores should be savagely punished. Faith should be demonstrated by a public death of the believer, slaughtering the unbelievers, be they the 86 Shia children being evacuated by bus from their homes in Syria on 15 April or the butchery of young fans at a pop concert in Manchester on Monday night.

ORDER IT NOW

The real causes of “radicalisation” have long been known, but the government, the BBC and others seldom if ever refer to it because they do not want to offend the Saudis or be accused of anti-Islamic bias. It is much easier to say, piously but quite inaccurately, that Isis and al-Qaeda and their murderous foot soldiers “have nothing to do with Islam”. This has been the track record of US and UK governments since 9/11. They will look in any direction except Saudi Arabia when seeking the causes of terrorism. President Trump has been justly denounced and derided in the US for last Sunday accusing Iran and, in effect, the Shia community of responsibility for the wave of terrorism that has engulfed the region when it ultimately emanates from one small but immensely influential Sunni sect. One of the great cultural changes in the world over the last 50 years is the way in which Wahhabism, once an isolated splinter group, has become an increasingly dominant influence over mainstream Sunni Islam, thanks to Saudi financial support.

A further sign of the Salafi-jihadi impact is the choice of targets: the attacks on the Bataclan theatre in Paris in 2015, a gay night club in Florida in 2016 and the Manchester Arena this week have one thing in common. They were all frequented by young people enjoying entertainment and a lifestyle which made them an Isis or al-Qaeda target. But these are also events where the mixing of men and women or the very presence of gay people is denounced by puritan Wahhabis and Salafi jihadis alike. They both live in a cultural environment in which the demonisation of such people and activities is the norm, though their response may differ.

The culpability of Western governments for terrorist attacks on their own citizens is glaring but is seldom even referred to. Leaders want to have a political and commercial alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. They have never held them to account for supporting a repressive and sectarian ideology which is likely to have inspired Salman Abedi. Details of his motivation may be lacking, but the target of his attack and the method of his death is classic al-Qaeda and Isis in its mode of operating.

The reason these two demonic organisations were able to survive and expand despite the billions – perhaps trillions – of dollars spent on “the war on terror” after 9/11 is that those responsible for stopping them deliberately missed the target and have gone on doing so. After 9/11, President Bush portrayed Iraq not Saudi Arabia as the enemy; in a re-run of history President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East. This is the real 9/11 conspiracy, beloved of crackpots worldwide, but there is nothing secret about the deliberate blindness of British and American governments to the source of the beliefs that has inspired the massacres of which Manchester is only the latest – and certainly not the last – horrible example.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

So Western air forces have been bombing Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt el al pretty much continuously since 1946? You're completely off your rocker mate.

In 732 Charles Martel defeated an islamic invasion of Europe at the battle of Tours. Western forces defeated many similar muslim invasions over the following centuries including the Spanish Reconquista, the siege of Vienna in 1529 and the battle of Vienna in 1683.

Islam is a rapacious and predatory socio-political ideology that has been attempting to conquer the west for over a thousand years before 1946, The only choice the west has is whether to submit to the invasions or fight.

Of course they don't "mostly happen at venues like teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock concert halls", those are just the ones that make the big news splashes.

Nor do they "only happen in proudly tolerant, liberal countries": they mostly happen in the countries destabilised by US sphere military action. The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and not "in proudly tolerant, liberal countries" at all.

Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC, from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions collectively. The butcher's bill is still piling up in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches, they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue? Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil companies? Too secure, public venues are the easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die, that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses.. Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is installed.

Maybe the religion itself has some influence? They are infidels.
Have you taken a look at the quran?
Have you looked at the constant on and on and on threats of hellfire and torture? Every second page you are threatened with it.
If I were a young, Muslim male and serious about religion, I would be scared s..tless.
Add in testosterone levels. And consider the scenario of Paradise. Beautiful damsels, with dark eyes and ,well, you get the drift. That's all you do all day long, and boys serve you fancy food and wine, while you loll around on green sofas in beautiful gardens. .
The only sure way you get the goodies is if you die in Jihad.
Add in all the behind the scenes agendas.... voila.

Why do those responsible deliberately miss the target and have gone on doing so? Because they all profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war industry and its various ‘communities’, the Jews. the media, you name it, they’re all in it for fun and profit. None of them would have an income if it all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you know, peace whatever that is.

They can manufacture an invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMDs as punishment for 911, when apparently the real culprits were supposed to be Saudis. They can pretend that the conflict in Syria is a ‘civil war’ rather than a proxy invasion by the US, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. They can manufacture groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS but pretend that these groups arose independently from their own funding, operations and just plain meddling in everybody else’s business. They can pretend that Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism in the ME when clearly it isn’t. They can bullshit really anything they want and everybody just buys it.

If they can do all this, then 911 ought not be too difficult either. The press and so-called intellectual class just buys into whatever the narrative is supposed to be. Karl Rove’s statement that ‘the empire can create it’s own reality now’ is fairly obviously a sly reference to 911. How does the empire get to this level of expertise? Clearly a military industrial complex funded to the tune of a trillion dollars per year that can research any problem and do whatever it wants could run such a project without much difficulty. It can also buy off the press and influence the intellectual classes in all sorts of ways that conform to some manual in some top secret facility that nobody has ever heard of and never will.

The release of the redacted 28 pages shows that Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, funded two the supposed hijackers for a year while they prepared for the ‘attack’. This indicates without any doubt that the hijackers were Saudi intelligence assets pretending to be hijackers. (Unless you are wacky enough to believe that Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, secretly sought to stab his good friends in the back by committing a heavy atrocity upon them, or at least didn’t tell them about it in advance). So its obvious that the Saudis were running the hijacker side of the 911 operation for their good friends in America because thats what good friends do. That’s why the hijackers were Saudi, rather than say Iraqi or Iranian, and thats why America didn’t invade the Saudis as punishment for the terrible deed.

Of course we also know that the CIA let these same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence assets, into the United States without telling the FBI about it although it had several occasions to do so. How odd, yet these same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence assets, were known terrorists and the CIA definitely knew all about them.

Please Mr Cockburn can you explain in your own words why believing 911 was an inside job is somehow crackpot?

Now all focus is on the Islamic terrorists instead of the real culprit, before the bombing and killing on the fabricated WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention there was no suicide bombers or Islamic terrorists. Manufactured consent never stops by the West under the leadership of the Empire of Chaos.

Of course they don’t “mostly happen at venues like teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock concert halls”, those are just the ones that make the big news splashes.

Nor do they “only happen in proudly tolerant, liberal countries”: they mostly happen in the countries destabilised by US sphere military action. The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and not “in proudly tolerant, liberal countries” at all.

Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the security services have two different levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs proles.

Note that this guy was reported to the police by his own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in Libya:
“Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have called the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago to raise concerns that he thought ‘being a suicide bomber was OK’.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed that members of his own family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’…It is understood that Abedi was ‘known’ to the Security Services through his associations to those linked to terrorism in Manchester’s Libyan community…According to NBC, a senior US intelligence official said Abedi’s family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’. He was identified after the attack by his bankcard and had used a ‘big and sophisticated bomb’ using materials not widely available in Britain.”

But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim community, they picked up on it right away - well, guess what the target was:
“A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed police arrested a man who is alleged to have been found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered following a tip-off to police by a member of Britain’s Muslim community who was concerned about the man’s behaviour.”

You’ll happily point to wahhabism as one of the contributory factors. I’d have thought you would be prepared to point to the history of aggressive US sphere military intervention in muslim countries, though you seem a little coy about that in this case, presumably so as not to distract from your case against wahhabism, which so conveniently ties in with your bête noir Trump’s recent stupidity in Saudi Arabia.

But you won’t ever admit that immigration is one of the prime factors.

So in this case we have a bombing carried out by a 2nd generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose father was admitted to the country for political reasons because he was an active member of the opposition to the Libyan government, which our government sought to encourage, in the context of Libya having recently been effectively destroyed and consigned to brutally murderous, bloody chaos by aggressive UK military action.

And yet for Cockburn and for most of the media and political establishments, it’s seemingly vital to pretend that it’s nothing to do with either “invade the world” or “invite the world”.

It now seems this was a bombing carried out by a 2nd generation immigrant muslim Libyan whose father was admitted to the country for political reasons because he was an active member of the opposition to the Libyan government, which our government sought to encourage, in the context of Libya having recently been effectively destroyed and consigned to brutally murderous, bloody chaos by aggressive UK military action.

Here’s the BBC on the tangled web of foreign conflicts our government has enmeshed us in in Libya, by allowing immigration from a country and regime changing its government by aggressive military force:

There is a stark similarity here with the recent Orlando nightclub shooting. In that case the attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the US government has destroyed by aggressive military action, whose parents were admitted to the country because his father was part of the opposition to a government the US regime wanted changed. Mateen made online posts calling for revenge on the US for what it had done to ME countries and even called the police in the midst of his shootings to declare it was an act of retaliation for US killings, and yet those with an interest in obfuscation have looked high and low for other motivations to obscure the obvious one.

Invade the world and invite the world. It really is as simple as that. Our governments interfere murderously in other countries whilst importing foreigners from those same countries and related ones, and then act all horrified when it turns out they have imported those wars along with the people.

Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC, from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions collectively. The butcher’s bill is still piling up in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches, they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue? Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil companies? Too secure, public venues are the easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die, that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses.. Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is installed.

Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal, shutting mosques and – somehow – exiling their own third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not being practical, it stands counter to our values, to whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.

Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they will strengthen our resolve.

These people are also not part of a centralised campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors

What we need is more immigration so that Muslims feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any power in any society these attacks will continue

So long as the Afghan government is aligned with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember, India is Pakistan’s number one strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).

Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of recorded history. All this reduction to the variant of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves you none the wiser.

We can’t control what goes on in darkies’/non-Europeans’ heads. They may hate us and want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may not.

This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt you know better. You imply that in this context actions have no consequences, but in the real world of course they do.

But if we don’t let them into our countries, it doesn’t matter if they hate us, want to kill us, want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads. They won’t be able to do any of those things.

This is true only up to a point, and to that extent merely confirms the stupidity of the aforementioned combined policies of invade and invite. However, it is not as true any more as it was in the days of the European colonial empires, that what we do on the other side of the world to foreigners will never come back to bite us. The world is an ever smaller place, even without mass immigration.

So long as we continue the invade half of the policy stupidity, we will always be involved or potentially involved in wars all over the world that ought to be nothing to do with us, and the incentive will always be there, and at the highest of priorities, for foreigners and dual loyalty types to manipulate our opinions and our politics and governments to try to get us involved on their preferred side. Of course that incentive will always be there to some extent, but the more we do it the easier it is to manipulate us into becoming some faction's military and the greater the incentive for them to sink resources into achieving that end.

Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was destroyed, by anyone? I’ve never seen it done convincingly.

The place has long been a complete dump; there’s just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

This completely misses the point, of course.

Whether you think the particular term used is appropriate or not, the fact is that the daily killings that are inflicted by and flow from the US/UK's military aggressions around the world have consequences in the minds and hearts of those whose loyalties lie in the region affected.

The place [Afghanistan] has long been a complete dump; there’s just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

This is such an ignorant statement that it almost defies belief. It is the type of statement that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost make me think that the terrorists were not completely unjustified.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jomana Abedi said that she was surprised that her brother had carried out the attack, as she had known him to be a “kind” and “loving” person.

However, she went on to explain that she believed his act to be one of “revenge.” “I think he saw children - Muslim children - dying everywhere, and wanted revenge,” she said. “He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted to revenge.

Beyond the question of Islam, the people from Muslim nations are for the most part lousy human specimens, Islam or not. Does Islam put them into garish track suits? Is Islam commanding them to grift on welfare and other public services? Is it Islam that has them sex grooming young white girls?

Or is this just the behavior one would expect from an invading army that faces no resistance? Indeed, not only are they not resisted, they are feted (but never vetted). They are given MORE RIGHTS by law than the native population. They are encouraged to remain tribal.

In other words, they see their host nations as weak, foolish, cowardly places simply asking to be exploited to the max. For one Mohammed maybe it’s welfare fraud. For another it’s hanging about in public spaces, threatening the native population. For another, it’s bullying the white kids at school. For another, it’s strapping on a bomb. These are all the same things, just at different places on a continuum.

And since they are nearly all low IQ with little future time orientation, they will never turn into the doctors and layers and computer programmers of Liberal fantasy.

Sure, it’s pretty convenient that Islam is morally OK with any and all of this behavior. But the bottom line is that Europe is importing vast numbers of degenerate human specimens that will never amount to a thing and will be a problem in perpetuity. That is, until they take over and kill or enslave the remaining whites. Then hey, no more problem!

So long as the Afghan government is aligned with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember, India is Pakistan’s number one strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).

Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of recorded history. All this reduction to the variant of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves you none the wiser.

The real reason is the politically correct genocidal racism and racist colonialism that brought this bomber and his fellow invaders to the West in the first place. Those forces spend a hell of a a lot more money and effort in exterminating the West and its peoples than Wahhabism does promoting Sunni extremism. Stop cucking around the real issue, violent Muslim terrorism and crime in the West is a by-product of white-hating racism so intense and genocidal that its perpetrators will import, embrace, and support Muslims and Muslim terrorists.

Taking punitive action against all Muslims is the strategic goal of these people, widening the gulf between Muslims and non-believers and moving towards some kind of major clash of civilisations. They will not be dissuaded by the West making Islam illegal, shutting mosques and - somehow - exiling their own third-and-fourth generation citizens. As well as not being practical, it stands counter to our values, to whit punishing the actions of the overwhelming majority for the actions of the lunatic fringe few.

Britain endured 300,000 dead to defeat Nazi Germany, France over 700,000 dead. We are simply not going to be intimidated by such measures. If anything, they will strengthen our resolve.

These people are also not part of a centralised campaign being run by ISIS they are lone actors

What we need is more immigration so that Muslims feel more comfortable. As long as white hold any power in any society these attacks will continue

Hey TD,

LOL! I was actually taking you seriously until the last paragraph! What a zinger!

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

Thats a good one . The British are completely helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham (actually every city in England) scandal. The only immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is EU immigration.

President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Trump’s original pick for McMaster’s job, General Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and recognise that going to war doesn't just mean that Americans get to kill other people without anyone fighting back.

Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long before - decades before - the US chose to invade its neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its occupation went well then Iran would be next. A grownup would understand that just as the US killed all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on Iran.

Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran) there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for another round and vast opportunities for yet another, worse, disaster.

And, of course, the Iranians weren't the ones supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed more than their share of US troops, with money to buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look closer to home - at the very same foreign interests currently trying to manufacture another confrontation of Iran.

Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

Unlikely, since those who would gain from a confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington, not in the real America. Most likely the US regime will back away from a full confrontation when it comes down to it, as they have on every previous occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran with their tails between their legs in 1979.

And while those people do have the clout to manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.

And if they don't back away from it then the consequences will be every bit as costly, and more, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for the region and for the US and for American soldiers, and this time those responsible for it will likely face a lot more than general political embarrassment.

"Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops.,"

The Bullshit never ends, does it?

Even the murderous neocon morons eventually realized that showing evidence with "Made in Iran" printed on it in English was a mistake.

Of course they don't "mostly happen at venues like teen concerts, coastal promenades, gay nightclubs, rock concert halls", those are just the ones that make the big news splashes.

Nor do they "only happen in proudly tolerant, liberal countries": they mostly happen in the countries destabilised by US sphere military action. The vast, vast majority of all islamist terrorism happens in those countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and not "in proudly tolerant, liberal countries" at all.

Hey Randal,

Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the security services have two different levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs proles.

Note that this guy was reported to the police by his own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in Libya:
“Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have called the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago to raise concerns that he thought ‘being a suicide bomber was OK’.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed that members of his own family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’…It is understood that Abedi was ‘known’ to the Security Services through his associations to those linked to terrorism in Manchester’s Libyan community…According to NBC, a senior US intelligence official said Abedi’s family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’. He was identified after the attack by his bankcard and had used a ‘big and sophisticated bomb’ using materials not widely available in Britain.”

But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim community, they picked up on it right away – well, guess what the target was:
“A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed police arrested a man who is alleged to have been found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered following a tip-off to police by a member of Britain’s Muslim community who was concerned about the man’s behaviour.”

We can't control what goes on in darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may not.

But if we don't let them into our countries, it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us, want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads. They won't be able to do any of those things.

See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do. The matter is very much in doubt.)

In that case the attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the US government has destroyed

Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done convincingly.

The place has long been a complete dump; there's just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

We can’t control what goes on in darkies’/non-Europeans’ heads. They may hate us and want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may not.

This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt you know better. You imply that in this context actions have no consequences, but in the real world of course they do.

But if we don’t let them into our countries, it doesn’t matter if they hate us, want to kill us, want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads. They won’t be able to do any of those things.

This is true only up to a point, and to that extent merely confirms the stupidity of the aforementioned combined policies of invade and invite. However, it is not as true any more as it was in the days of the European colonial empires, that what we do on the other side of the world to foreigners will never come back to bite us. The world is an ever smaller place, even without mass immigration.

So long as we continue the invade half of the policy stupidity, we will always be involved or potentially involved in wars all over the world that ought to be nothing to do with us, and the incentive will always be there, and at the highest of priorities, for foreigners and dual loyalty types to manipulate our opinions and our politics and governments to try to get us involved on their preferred side. Of course that incentive will always be there to some extent, but the more we do it the easier it is to manipulate us into becoming some faction’s military and the greater the incentive for them to sink resources into achieving that end.

Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was destroyed, by anyone? I’ve never seen it done convincingly.

The place has long been a complete dump; there’s just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

This completely misses the point, of course.

Whether you think the particular term used is appropriate or not, the fact is that the daily killings that are inflicted by and flow from the US/UK’s military aggressions around the world have consequences in the minds and hearts of those whose loyalties lie in the region affected.

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

Thats a good one . The British are completely helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham (actually every city in England) scandal. The only immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is EU immigration.

President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Trump’s original pick for McMaster's job, General Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and recognise that going to war doesn’t just mean that Americans get to kill other people without anyone fighting back.

Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long before – decades before – the US chose to invade its neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its occupation went well then Iran would be next. A grownup would understand that just as the US killed all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on Iran.

Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran) there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for another round and vast opportunities for yet another, worse, disaster.

And, of course, the Iranians weren’t the ones supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed more than their share of US troops, with money to buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look closer to home – at the very same foreign interests currently trying to manufacture another confrontation of Iran.

Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

Unlikely, since those who would gain from a confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington, not in the real America. Most likely the US regime will back away from a full confrontation when it comes down to it, as they have on every previous occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran with their tails between their legs in 1979.

And while those people do have the clout to manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.

And if they don’t back away from it then the consequences will be every bit as costly, and more, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for the region and for the US and for American soldiers, and this time those responsible for it will likely face a lot more than general political embarrassment.

Very good posts. Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the security services have two different levels of prioritization when it comes to elites vs proles.

Note that this guy was reported to the police by his own family, acquaintances and security agencies knew he had traveled to Daesh-controlled territory in Libya:
“Two people who knew Salman Abedi are said to have called the police counter-terrorism hotline five years ago to raise concerns that he thought ‘being a suicide bomber was OK’.
And a senior US intelligence official has claimed that members of his own family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’…It is understood that Abedi was ‘known’ to the Security Services through his associations to those linked to terrorism in Manchester’s Libyan community…According to NBC, a senior US intelligence official said Abedi’s family had warned police that he was ‘dangerous’. He was identified after the attack by his bankcard and had used a ‘big and sophisticated bomb’ using materials not widely available in Britain.”

But when a guy was reported last month by the Muslim community, they picked up on it right away - well, guess what the target was:
“A suspected terrorist attack was foiled after armed police arrested a man who is alleged to have been found carrying knives near the Houses of Parliament.
The Guardian understands the operation was triggered following a tip-off to police by a member of Britain’s Muslim community who was concerned about the man’s behaviour.”

But it's saying the guy's family called him out to the police. And that he was known to security services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and what part of Libya - what the hell??!!

Furthermore, at this point - if you have teenager talking smack about suicide bombing - take it seriously.

Let us not leave out the good offices of the DNC, from where Hillary and Obama murdered millions collectively. The butcher's bill is still piling up in Syria, Iraq and especially, Libya. Bomb churches, they might get bombed back. And bomb a Synagogue? Not smart unless you want your entire crew invited to a seance with the Mossad. Wall Street and oil companies? Too secure, public venues are the easiest. But we get your point, Anti, you want Republicans, Jews and Christians and money to die, that will make you happy. Too bad for you, everyday gays and women are suffering the most anywhere you have the Muslims in all the Euro-flophouses.. Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is installed.

Feminists, gays and Liberals in general are the first to the beheading line when the Caliphate is installed.

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

Thats a good one . The British are completely helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham (actually every city in England) scandal. The only immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is EU immigration.

President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Trump’s original pick for McMaster's job, General Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

“Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops.,”

The Bullshit never ends, does it?

Even the murderous neocon morons eventually realized that showing evidence with “Made in Iran” printed on it in English was a mistake.

Though in this particular case I doubt they had much to go on with just a report that a teenager was spouting off about suicide bombing - that must be pretty commonplace.

Hey Randal,

But it’s saying the guy’s family called him out to the police. And that he was known to security services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and what part of Libya – what the hell??!!

Furthermore, at this point – if you have teenager talking smack about suicide bombing – take it seriously.

I'm not sure it's feasible to take seriously every report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever. There are probably thousands of them, most of them just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.

In this case it was complicated by the fact that his family connections were to "our" terrorists in Libya and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you should take it more seriously (he clearly had access to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage wannabee doesn't have), but apart from whatever connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK security forces themselves, how would they be sure he was talking about blowing up people here and not blowing up people our government likes to see blown up in Libya or Syria?

The latter, of course, is an area we will never see honestly reported.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Then the likes of McMaster need to grow up a bit and recognise that going to war doesn't just mean that Americans get to kill other people without anyone fighting back.

Iran was being menaced and harmed by the US long before - decades before - the US chose to invade its neighbour whilst giving clear signals that if its occupation went well then Iran would be next. A grownup would understand that just as the US killed all the Iraqis it felt were necessary to the success of its policy, so Iran in turn helped kill all the Americans it felt were necessary to prevent that success and prevent the likely subsequent attack on Iran.

Hardball cuts both ways and big boys take their lumps and move on, when (as with the US and Iran) there is nothing the US can gain by coming back for another round and vast opportunities for yet another, worse, disaster.

And, of course, the Iranians weren't the ones supplying the sunni jihadists in Iraq, who killed more than their share of US troops, with money to buy weapons, for that McMaster would need to look closer to home - at the very same foreign interests currently trying to manufacture another confrontation of Iran.

Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

Unlikely, since those who would gain from a confrontation between the US and Iran live in Riyadh and Tel Aviv, and in plush offices in Washington, not in the real America. Most likely the US regime will back away from a full confrontation when it comes down to it, as they have on every previous occasion since they were rightly turfed out of Iran with their tails between their legs in 1979.

And while those people do have the clout to manufacture consent for a war with Iran as they did with Iraq, they obviously (and rightly) fear the consequences for themselves when it all goes bad.

And if they don't back away from it then the consequences will be every bit as costly, and more, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq proved for the region and for the US and for American soldiers, and this time those responsible for it will likely face a lot more than general political embarrassment.

Hey Randal,

Plus, I thought our assassination of some of their nuclear scientists was our response.

big boys take their lumps and move on

Or we could try banging our head against the wall until it breaks…I’ll let you figure out what “it” is in this circumstance.

The ultimate inspiration for such people is Wahhabism, the puritanical, fanatical and regressive type of Islam dominant in Saudi Arabia, whose ideology is close to that of al-Qaeda and Isis

Absolutely right. And we just swindled them for out of $110 billion to prop up our war industries so these “sand#@*&#$s” can go and do the dirty job for our masters in Tel-Aviv and their representatives in Washington.
Are we really “friends” with a regime that is only different from N. Korea because of its oil?
Even the Islam they’re propagating is exactly what The Prophet Muhammad fought against, until they lost and had to convert. Its Islam, is a cult that follows strict Bedouin traditions, that are typical Semitic. Women and others who rank low in the tribe are considered less human. Orthodox Judaism, and their Bedouin half brothers have had this law of no rights to the above mentioned since time immemorial. Jewish women are forbidden to touch or read the Torah. This is a religious law. If they do it now its only because of progress.
So Arabs who have adopted Wahhabism (they have lots of money to spend) are trying to infuse their culture as part of Islam. Which it is not……
Good luck to those who will receive the brunt of our mighty bombs thru the Wahhabis

We can't control what goes on in darkies'/non-Europeans' heads. They may hate us and want to kill us, or they may not. They may decide to set off bombs, chop off heads, etc., or they may not.

But if we don't let them into our countries, it doesn't matter if they hate us, want to kill us, want to set off bombs, or want to chop off heads. They won't be able to do any of those things.

See how logic works, lefties? (Please say you do. The matter is very much in doubt.)

In that case the attacker was likewise a second generation immigrant muslim from a country (in that case Afghanistan) the US government has destroyed

Has anyone really made the case that Afghanistan was destroyed, by anyone? I've never seen it done convincingly.

The place has long been a complete dump; there's just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

The place [Afghanistan] has long been a complete dump; there’s just never been anything to destroy. Not within living memory, anyway.

This is such an ignorant statement that it almost defies belief. It is the type of statement that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost make me think that the terrorists were not completely unjustified.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Jomana Abedi said that she was surprised that her brother had carried out the attack, as she had known him to be a “kind” and “loving” person.

However, she went on to explain that she believed his act to be one of “revenge.” “I think he saw children – Muslim children – dying everywhere, and wanted revenge,” she said. “He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted to revenge.

But it's saying the guy's family called him out to the police. And that he was known to security services based on ties to terrorist sympathizers in the Libyan community in Manchester. Furthermore, the article mentions that they knew he went to Libya and what part of Libya - what the hell??!!

Furthermore, at this point - if you have teenager talking smack about suicide bombing - take it seriously.

Peace.

I’m not sure it’s feasible to take seriously every report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever. There are probably thousands of them, most of them just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.

In this case it was complicated by the fact that his family connections were to “our” terrorists in Libya and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you should take it more seriously (he clearly had access to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage wannabee doesn’t have), but apart from whatever connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK security forces themselves, how would they be sure he was talking about blowing up people here and not blowing up people our government likes to see blown up in Libya or Syria?

The latter, of course, is an area we will never see honestly reported.

I'm not sure it's feasible to take seriously every report of a teenage immigrant (1st or 2nd gen) lad making big talk about suicide bombing or whatever. There are probably thousands of them, most of them just hormoned up boys making themselves feel big or expressing their inadequately controlled emotions.

In this case it was complicated by the fact that his family connections were to "our" terrorists in Libya and Syria. On the one hand that might suggest you should take it more seriously (he clearly had access to dodgy contacts and materials the average teenage wannabee doesn't have), but apart from whatever connections his family undoubtedly had in the UK security forces themselves, how would they be sure he was talking about blowing up people here and not blowing up people our government likes to see blown up in Libya or Syria?

The latter, of course, is an area we will never see honestly reported.

Hey Randal,

Good points. Yeah, I doubt they’ll ever report the damage our approved “forces” are doing in that region.

I think this lady has found the solution to stop these guys:
“‘Much needs to be done to eradicate this evil. ‘But there is one simple step which we can take now: we must bring back the death penalty.’”

So long as the Afghan government is aligned with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember, India is Pakistan’s number one strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).

Makes perfect sense.

This is literally stupid, and I have no doubt you know better. You imply that in this context actions have no consequences, but in the real world of course they do.

We can influence those things, but we have no control, and no guarantee. Keeping them out is fully under our control, and is guaranteed to work.

Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked Right/’Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the most part.

This is such an ignorant statement that it almost defies belief. It is the type of statement that, were I from a Muslim nation, would almost make me think that the terrorists were not completely unjustified.

It’s beyond your ken that when people talk of the destruction of Afghanistan, some other people point out that there wasn’t far to fall?

So long as the Afghan government is aligned with India, as it now is, Pakistan must support the Taliban. The Taliban offers its only option for an alliance with Afghanistan, which it must have for strategic depth vis-a-vis India. Remember, India is Pakistan’s number one strategic threat. A pro-India Afghanistan threatens Pakistan with a two-front war, which is intolerable. So Pakistan is tied to the Taliban whether it wants to be or not (my guess is not).

Afghanistan is a pawn in the Pakistan-India conflict, just as Syria is caught up in a Arab-Persian quarrel that started at the dawn of recorded history. All this reduction to the variant of Islam promoted by the Saudis Cockburn does leaves you none the wiser.

The irony is that the places that terrorists targeted were the very places that would give the most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an even higher margin than the last election. I suppose these people have a death wish.

Pious Leftists will never attribute any adversity that befalls them as an argument against their political religion. They will find other rationalizations; they are highly adept at loose logic and penumbral rhetoric.

Really, I say to the Libertardians/Leftists/Muslim sympathizers, and to the Zionists/Cucked Right/'Murricans, a pox on both your houses. Both of you lie through your teeth on a constant basis. Both groups are fanatically pro-open-borders, for the most part.

I was going to add that Neocons also support open borders, but then I realized that they are in the same category as “cucked right”

Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they decided to declare a “pagan” (kaffirun) in order to legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering them LONG before the West even considered bothering to colonize the Arabs.

The Wahhabi originated in the one part of Arabia that the Prophet (SAAW) refused to bless – the Najd. He stated that that was the place where fitnah (disorder, chaos) came from.

The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular among the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a *virtue* instead of brigandage. The British put the Sauds in charge of the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi Arabia.

The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they considered pagan – Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia – it didn’t matter. Unless you believed in their literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost entirely on outward conformity from what I have seen. While other Muslims are discussing the attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi women to “follow the stronger evidence” and cover their *feet.* Seriously. For real.

Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for women to pray, often only accessible by passing through the area outside where the dumpsters are, and note that the women’s restroom many be filthier than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident. Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman – in public – and acknowledged to all present that she was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that happening in Wahhabi land – a woman’s voice is considered part of her awrah or nakedness.

If a religious education program for women even *exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering one’s feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman’s prayer is “better” for her at home – so why are all of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?

The importance of prayer seems to be limited to having the exact “correct” position of the hands, feet, etc. – and saying the “correct” exact words. Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed that I should never, ever pray in sadl – with my arms down – because Imam Malik only did that “because he had been tortured.” When I asked a Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that “whoever says that is a liar.” And that they really need to fear God.

So, while silly westerners are running around and claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling us all what they really want – and the left of the west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally insists that the extremists are so backward and stupid that they don’t really mean what they say because anyone with half a brain would be irate over *material* issues, not religious matters.

You can find the Daesh English language publication on line. Read it before you continue blathering endless irrelevancies about “colonialism.”

I think it is a combination of both ideology and being given the right environment in which to gestate (and Western imperialism works as a recruiting tool).

because Imam Malik only did that “because he had been tortured.”

I remember hearing that when I was younger too. Yeah, it's not like he was a scholar that everyone looked up to (or the last link in the Golden Chain of hadith) and was an inheritor of the tradition of the people of Madinah - naw, must have been because his arms hurt! LOL!

Though I have to admit some Wahhabis do have some reasonable etiquette when they try to correct you - the others are super annoying or just outright scary.

While I fully concur the views stated here by Mr. Cockburn on this matter, “western” regimes have a more direct link to the Manchester terrorist act: the fact that the destruction of Libya by Obama and the French, spearheaded in the US by then foreign secretary Hillary Clinton against the advice of Gates, the war minister at the time, and contrary to Obama’s instincts was a direct link in the chain leading to this Libyan’s terrorist act. There are also rumours published elsewhere that this terrorist underwent training to act as one of the “tame” rebels working to overthrow the Assad government. The support for the Cameron government for the Libya action puts the blood of this event on the hands of the successor tory May government, in its use of this blowback event to gain electoral mileage in its effort to stay in power in Britain.

As indicated, I concur with inferences of the comment by Randal, #8 above that western actions, including the destruction of Libya, played the key role in this attack.

Sorry, but the Wahhabis were happily slaughtering fellow Sunni, Jews, Shia, and anyone else they decided to declare a "pagan" (kaffirun) in order to legitimize raping, robbing, enslaving, and murdering them LONG before the West even considered bothering to colonize the Arabs.

The Wahhabi originated in the one part of Arabia that the Prophet (SAAW) refused to bless - the Najd. He stated that that was the place where fitnah (disorder, chaos) came from.

The preaching of Abdul-Wahhab was very popular among the bedu clan ruled by the Saud family. This practice of takfir, insisting other Muslims were heretics, polytheists, pagans (kaffirun) made robbing pilgrimage and other caravans a *virtue* instead of brigandage. The British put the Sauds in charge of the Arabian peninsula, now known as Saudi Arabia.

The Wahhabis promptly slaughtered those they considered pagan - Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi, Shia - it didn't matter. Unless you believed in their literalist primitive understanding of Islam, you were obviously a pagan. The Wahhabi focus almost entirely on outward conformity from what I have seen. While other Muslims are discussing the attributes of God, the Wahhabis are ordering Hanafi women to "follow the stronger evidence" and cover their *feet.* Seriously. For real.

Go to any Saudi supported masjid in the US, and notice how many have filthy, horrible areas for women to pray, often only accessible by passing through the area outside where the dumpsters are, and note that the women's restroom many be filthier than a porta-potti in Tijuana. This is no accident. Wahhabis think women should be neither seen nor heard. They know more than the Caliph Umar who accepted a correction on Islamic law from a woman - in public - and acknowledged to all present that she was correct, and he was wrong. No danger of that happening in Wahhabi land - a woman's voice is considered part of her awrah or nakedness.

If a religious education program for women even *exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering one's feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman's prayer is "better" for her at home - so why are all of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?

The importance of prayer seems to be limited to having the exact "correct" position of the hands, feet, etc. - and saying the "correct" exact words. Imagine my surprise when I was earnestly informed that I should never, ever pray in sadl - with my arms down - because Imam Malik only did that "because he had been tortured." When I asked a Mauritania Shaykh, a noted religious scholar about this statement, he was rather blunt. It seems that "whoever says that is a liar." And that they really need to fear God.

So, while silly westerners are running around and claiming that Daesh and crew are really upset about colonialism or whatever, the extremists keep telling us all what they really want - and the left of the west is so bigoted and patronizing that it literally insists that the extremists are so backward and stupid that they don't really mean what they say because anyone with half a brain would be irate over *material* issues, not religious matters.

You can find the Daesh English language publication on line. Read it before you continue blathering endless irrelevancies about "colonialism."

Salaam The Kid,

I think it is a combination of both ideology and being given the right environment in which to gestate (and Western imperialism works as a recruiting tool).

because Imam Malik only did that “because he had been tortured.”

I remember hearing that when I was younger too. Yeah, it’s not like he was a scholar that everyone looked up to (or the last link in the Golden Chain of hadith) and was an inheritor of the tradition of the people of Madinah – naw, must have been because his arms hurt! LOL!

Though I have to admit some Wahhabis do have some reasonable etiquette when they try to correct you – the others are super annoying or just outright scary.

Thanks! For a while I thought you might identify their motivation with our having bombed Muslim countries pretty much continuously since 1946.
Nice save!

So Western air forces have been bombing Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt el al pretty much continuously since 1946? You’re completely off your rocker mate.

In 732 Charles Martel defeated an islamic invasion of Europe at the battle of Tours. Western forces defeated many similar muslim invasions over the following centuries including the Spanish Reconquista, the siege of Vienna in 1529 and the battle of Vienna in 1683.

Islam is a rapacious and predatory socio-political ideology that has been attempting to conquer the west for over a thousand years before 1946, The only choice the west has is whether to submit to the invasions or fight.

The irony is that the places that terrorists targeted were the very places that would give the most support to Muslims and refugees. And they still would, too. The very same neighborhood in Paris that suffered from the 2015 attacks rejected Le Pen at an even higher margin than the last election. I suppose these people have a death wish.

Pious Leftists will never attribute any adversity that befalls them as an argument against their political religion. They will find other rationalizations; they are highly adept at loose logic and penumbral rhetoric.

In the wake of the massacre in Manchester, people rightly warn against blaming the entire Muslim community in Britain and the world. Certainly one of the aims of those who carry out such atrocities is to provoke the communal punishment of all Muslims, thereby alienating a portion of them who will then become open to recruitment by Isis and al-Qaeda clones.

Thats a good one . The British are completely helpless against Muslims, the police are trained to punish whites not Muslims. Look at the Rotherham (actually every city in England) scandal. The only immigration that is vulnerable to public opinion is EU immigration.

President Trump is ludicrously accusing Iran of being the source of most terrorism in the Middle East.

Americans like Trumps defence advisor McMaster way have been rather put off Iran due to them supplying explosively formed penetrator weapons to their Shia proxy terrorist force in Iraq,which used them to kill hundreds of US troops., and leave many others without arms legs or testicles. McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

Trump’s original pick for McMaster's job, General Flynn, was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well. Iran ludicrously took on the US, and now comes the reckoning.

On earth, it was Sunni insurgents who inflicted well over 90% of casualties on US troops. You are stupid and crazy.

McMaster's unit on the Syria- iraq border was under attack from cat's paws of Assad then undisputed ruler of Syria , and he must be really clever to be in the position he is in now having lost half his inherited realm.

Most of the killings of US troops in Iraq were not by Iranian proxies; true, but that STILL means hundreds of US troops were killed by the Iraqi Shia groups acting as a cat's paw of IRAN. How sane and intelligent of Iran to provoke the US.

Why do those responsible deliberately miss the target and have gone on doing so? Because they all profit greatly from it. Who are they? The war industry and its various 'communities', the Jews. the media, you name it, they're all in it for fun and profit. None of them would have an income if it all just stopped, if they actually wanted, you know, peace whatever that is.

They can manufacture an invasion of Iraq based on non-existent WMDs as punishment for 911, when apparently the real culprits were supposed to be Saudis. They can pretend that the conflict in Syria is a 'civil war' rather than a proxy invasion by the US, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. They can manufacture groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS but pretend that these groups arose independently from their own funding, operations and just plain meddling in everybody else's business. They can pretend that Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism in the ME when clearly it isn't. They can bullshit really anything they want and everybody just buys it.

If they can do all this, then 911 ought not be too difficult either. The press and so-called intellectual class just buys into whatever the narrative is supposed to be. Karl Rove's statement that 'the empire can create it's own reality now' is fairly obviously a sly reference to 911. How does the empire get to this level of expertise? Clearly a military industrial complex funded to the tune of a trillion dollars per year that can research any problem and do whatever it wants could run such a project without much difficulty. It can also buy off the press and influence the intellectual classes in all sorts of ways that conform to some manual in some top secret facility that nobody has ever heard of and never will.

The release of the redacted 28 pages shows that Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, funded two the supposed hijackers for a year while they prepared for the 'attack'. This indicates without any doubt that the hijackers were Saudi intelligence assets pretending to be hijackers. (Unless you are wacky enough to believe that Prince Bandar, good friend of the Bush family, secretly sought to stab his good friends in the back by committing a heavy atrocity upon them, or at least didn't tell them about it in advance). So its obvious that the Saudis were running the hijacker side of the 911 operation for their good friends in America because thats what good friends do. That's why the hijackers were Saudi, rather than say Iraqi or Iranian, and thats why America didn't invade the Saudis as punishment for the terrible deed.

Of course we also know that the CIA let these same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence assets, into the United States without telling the FBI about it although it had several occasions to do so. How odd, yet these same two hijackers, or rather Saudi intelligence assets, were known terrorists and the CIA definitely knew all about them.

Please Mr Cockburn can you explain in your own words why believing 911 was an inside job is somehow crackpot?

Now all focus is on the Islamic terrorists instead of the real culprit, before the bombing and killing on the fabricated WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention there was no suicide bombers or Islamic terrorists. Manufactured consent never stops by the West under the leadership of the Empire of Chaos.

Unlike a fair amount of Patrick Cockburn’s stuff, I thought this article was spot on until we got to the last paragraph. “This is the real conspiracy theory, beloved of crackpots worldwide”. Dear me Patrick when will you get your head out of your bottom or is writing for the Independent a bar to this? Even the excellent Philip Giraldi and Eric Margolis are starting to crack on the ‘Saudis must have done it’ nonsense.

Maybe the religion itself has some influence? They are infidels.
Have you taken a look at the quran?
Have you looked at the constant on and on and on threats of hellfire and torture? Every second page you are threatened with it.
If I were a young, Muslim male and serious about religion, I would be scared s..tless.
Add in testosterone levels. And consider the scenario of Paradise. Beautiful damsels, with dark eyes and ,well, you get the drift. That’s all you do all day long, and boys serve you fancy food and wine, while you loll around on green sofas in beautiful gardens. .
The only sure way you get the goodies is if you die in Jihad.
Add in all the behind the scenes agendas…. voila.

Everyone gets the goodies, martyrs just get more. The siddeeq gets the highest rank after the prophets (pbut) and above the martyrs. Plus, you can't just do whatever the hell you want and call yourself a martyr - it doesn't work like that.

on and on threats of hellfire and torture

Yeah - pretty scary stuff. But once you believe, you come under the umbrella of God's protection from that fate. And as far as sins, asking God for forgiveness is very easy and the door of repentance is always open.

I was going to add that Neocons also support open borders, but then I realized that they are in the same category as “cucked right”

Actually, I was covering them with “Zionists.” “Cucked right” is more in “steppin and fetchin for the Zionists” territory.

If a religious education program for women even *exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering one’s feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman’s prayer is “better” for her at home – so why are all of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?

See, now this is good. It answers one of my questions about Islam – can I do the prayers at home? Because being dragged away to a mosque 5 times a friggin’ day was really looking like one of the big down sides of conversion. If I can do the prayers at home, I can just skip it; if anyone else is in the house, I can just lock myself in a room for however long, five times a day, blaring prayer music (so nobody can hear the music I’m blasting on my headphones), and voila, I’m a devout Muslim!

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is. Know the doctrines when questioned, fine. Mouth the proper pieties occasionally, fine. Keep the booze locked away in a secret stash, fine (never been a big boozer anyway, but still). But the whole having to rub elbows with real Muslims on a constant basis, having to go to a mosque five times a day, all that stuff is pretty much a deal-breaker.

P.S., how viable would a de-Arabification effort be in Islam? E.g., insisting on saying “peace” (or whatever salaam means) instead of “salaam”? Just curious. The Arabified parts of Islam strike me as humiliating to non-Arabs. In a conversion scenario, I’d try to find a way to dump them if I could.

Yes - it's not a very male thing to do, since men are supposed to go to the mosque if they live close by.

I’m a devout Muslim!

One can fool everyone - except the One that counts the most. Insincerity and showing off for others is called riyyah and is a sin. The Master of all that exists does not accept scraps off the table:"...A man who had acquired and imparted knowledge and read the Qur’an will be brought forward, Allah will remind him of the favors He had bestowed upon him and the man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him: `What did you do to express gratitude for it?’ The man will reply: `I acquired knowledge and taught it, and read the Qur’an for Your sake.’ Allah will say to him: `You have lied. You acquired knowledge so that people might call you a learned (man), and you read the Qur’an so that they might call you a reciter, and they have done so.’ Command will then be issued about him, and he will be dragged on his face and thrown into Hell..." reported in Muslim

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is.

Outwardly, very easy since things are all legally judged by that which is apparent- on the Day of Judgment, not so much. Those that accept Islam on the surface, but are secretly not are called munafiq (hypocrites). This is what the Qur'an has to say about them:"Indeed, the hypocrites (will be) in the lowest depths of the Fire, and never you will find for them any helper." (4:145)

Not a very good long-term strategy.

However, all this is different from being a real believer at the core but simply having weaknesses like drinking or fornicating. Everyone has their weaknesses and as long as one keeps trying to improve oneself, the door of forgiveness is wide, wide open. Penitence is easy, no confession to a priest or anything - just be sincere and make repentance - one will never be turned away:"Say, 'O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of God. Indeed, God forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.'" (39:53)

Sins against others are more complicated - one must make amends; so you can't just steal someone's car and then ask God for forgiveness and walk away - you have to return the car or ask the victim's forgiveness.

how viable would a de-Arabification effort be in Islam

Some things are completely a cultural prerogative, like clothing styles, food, language, etc. Other things like liturgy are not - it is in Arabic and will remain so - one cannot pray the 5 daily prayers in English or French or Malay. You can go around saying "peace" in a gathering of Muslims, but it just seems weird - like you're trying way too hard to be different. Everyone from Senegal to Bosnia to Malaysia says "salaam".

Shaykh Umar Abdullah Wymann-Landgraf explains how cultural predation is not the goal.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=862fsKcFs1Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTgyNqff8lw"In China, Islam looked Chinese; in Mali, it looked African. Sustained cultural relevance to distinct peoples, diverse places, and different times underlay Islam's long success as a global civilization...By contrast, much contemporary Islamist rhetoric falls far short of Islam's ancient cultural wisdom, assuming at times an unmitigated culturally predatory attitude. Such rhetoric and the movement ideologies that stand behind it have been deeply influenced by Western revolutionary dialectic and a dangerously selective retrieval and reinterpretation of Islamic scripture in that light. At the same time, however, the Islamist phenomenon is, to no small degree, a byproduct of the grave cultural dislocation and dysfunction of the contemporary Muslim world."http://www.crosscurrents.org/abdallahfall2006.htm

Why would you want to - it's not like we live in the time of the Ottomans where you could try to enter the power structure or something. Or that you live in a Muslim country so you can fake it to get the advantages of being part of the majority. What advantage do you have - other than being a pet project of the liberal Left? I can't think of a single convert that didn't have problems with either ; family, friends, or job - or all three.

For a reason - they hadn't yet received a revelation:
"[This is] a revelation of the Exalted in Might, the Merciful. That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware." (36:6-7)

You have to remember what the Islamic narrative is; it considers itself a return to religion primordial - unadulterated, transcendent monotheism. From what we have been taught; Divine guidance was never the monopoly of the Semites (of this we are certain):
“Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them.” (35:24)

“Of some messengers We have already told you the story; of others We have not – and to Moses God spoke directly.” (4:164)

Certain hadith (though they are weak in their chain of transmission) mention over a 100 thousand guides sent to all of mankind. It may be possible that men like Confucius, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc. might have been prophets to their people. We just don’t know for sure, nor are we confident that everything transmitted from them is accurate or sound – it may have easily been corrupted over time. Africans, Europeans, Native Americans, Aboriginals, etc. all had prophets sent to them - their message was either lost or massively diluted.

One may not accept or even like this narrative, but this is ultimately the narrative that the religion puts forward.

Maybe the religion itself has some influence? They are infidels.
Have you taken a look at the quran?
Have you looked at the constant on and on and on threats of hellfire and torture? Every second page you are threatened with it.
If I were a young, Muslim male and serious about religion, I would be scared s..tless.
Add in testosterone levels. And consider the scenario of Paradise. Beautiful damsels, with dark eyes and ,well, you get the drift. That's all you do all day long, and boys serve you fancy food and wine, while you loll around on green sofas in beautiful gardens. .
The only sure way you get the goodies is if you die in Jihad.
Add in all the behind the scenes agendas.... voila.

Hey marylou,

The only sure way you get the goodies is if you die in Jihad.

Everyone gets the goodies, martyrs just get more. The siddeeq gets the highest rank after the prophets (pbut) and above the martyrs. Plus, you can’t just do whatever the hell you want and call yourself a martyr – it doesn’t work like that.

on and on threats of hellfire and torture

Yeah – pretty scary stuff. But once you believe, you come under the umbrella of God’s protection from that fate. And as far as sins, asking God for forgiveness is very easy and the door of repentance is always open.

I was going to add that Neocons also support open borders, but then I realized that they are in the same category as “cucked right”

Actually, I was covering them with "Zionists." "Cucked right" is more in "steppin and fetchin for the Zionists" territory.

If a religious education program for women even *exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering one’s feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman’s prayer is “better” for her at home – so why are all of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?

See, now this is good. It answers one of my questions about Islam - can I do the prayers at home? Because being dragged away to a mosque 5 times a friggin' day was really looking like one of the big down sides of conversion. If I can do the prayers at home, I can just skip it; if anyone else is in the house, I can just lock myself in a room for however long, five times a day, blaring prayer music (so nobody can hear the music I'm blasting on my headphones), and voila, I'm a devout Muslim!

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is. Know the doctrines when questioned, fine. Mouth the proper pieties occasionally, fine. Keep the booze locked away in a secret stash, fine (never been a big boozer anyway, but still). But the whole having to rub elbows with real Muslims on a constant basis, having to go to a mosque five times a day, all that stuff is pretty much a deal-breaker.

P.S., how viable would a de-Arabification effort be in Islam? E.g., insisting on saying "peace" (or whatever salaam means) instead of "salaam"? Just curious. The Arabified parts of Islam strike me as humiliating to non-Arabs. In a conversion scenario, I'd try to find a way to dump them if I could.

Hey Svigor,

can I do the prayers at home?

Yes – it’s not a very male thing to do, since men are supposed to go to the mosque if they live close by.

I’m a devout Muslim!

One can fool everyone – except the One that counts the most. Insincerity and showing off for others is called riyyah and is a sin. The Master of all that exists does not accept scraps off the table:
“…A man who had acquired and imparted knowledge and read the Qur’an will be brought forward, Allah will remind him of the favors He had bestowed upon him and the man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him: `What did you do to express gratitude for it?’ The man will reply: `I acquired knowledge and taught it, and read the Qur’an for Your sake.’ Allah will say to him: `You have lied. You acquired knowledge so that people might call you a learned (man), and you read the Qur’an so that they might call you a reciter, and they have done so.’ Command will then be issued about him, and he will be dragged on his face and thrown into Hell…” reported in Muslim

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is.

Outwardly, very easy since things are all legally judged by that which is apparent- on the Day of Judgment, not so much. Those that accept Islam on the surface, but are secretly not are called munafiq (hypocrites). This is what the Qur’an has to say about them:
“Indeed, the hypocrites (will be) in the lowest depths of the Fire, and never you will find for them any helper.” (4:145)

Not a very good long-term strategy.

However, all this is different from being a real believer at the core but simply having weaknesses like drinking or fornicating. Everyone has their weaknesses and as long as one keeps trying to improve oneself, the door of forgiveness is wide, wide open. Penitence is easy, no confession to a priest or anything – just be sincere and make repentance – one will never be turned away:
“Say, ‘O My servants who have transgressed against themselves, do not despair of the mercy of God. Indeed, God forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful.’” (39:53)

Sins against others are more complicated – one must make amends; so you can’t just steal someone’s car and then ask God for forgiveness and walk away – you have to return the car or ask the victim’s forgiveness.

how viable would a de-Arabification effort be in Islam

Some things are completely a cultural prerogative, like clothing styles, food, language, etc. Other things like liturgy are not – it is in Arabic and will remain so – one cannot pray the 5 daily prayers in English or French or Malay. You can go around saying “peace” in a gathering of Muslims, but it just seems weird – like you’re trying way too hard to be different. Everyone from Senegal to Bosnia to Malaysia says “salaam”.

Shaykh Umar Abdullah Wymann-Landgraf explains how cultural predation is not the goal.

“In China, Islam looked Chinese; in Mali, it looked African. Sustained cultural relevance to distinct peoples, diverse places, and different times underlay Islam’s long success as a global civilization…By contrast, much contemporary Islamist rhetoric falls far short of Islam’s ancient cultural wisdom, assuming at times an unmitigated culturally predatory attitude. Such rhetoric and the movement ideologies that stand behind it have been deeply influenced by Western revolutionary dialectic and a dangerously selective retrieval and reinterpretation of Islamic scripture in that light. At the same time, however, the Islamist phenomenon is, to no small degree, a byproduct of the grave cultural dislocation and dysfunction of the contemporary Muslim world.”

(I mean sure, the origin story is baked into the cake, but that stuff's easily spun; Allah chose the Arabs, Yahweh chose the Hebrews, for the same reasons doctors treat the sickest patients first)

Allah chose the Arabs

For a reason – they hadn’t yet received a revelation:
“[This is] a revelation of the Exalted in Might, the Merciful. That you may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned, so they are unaware.” (36:6-7)

You have to remember what the Islamic narrative is; it considers itself a return to religion primordial – unadulterated, transcendent monotheism. From what we have been taught; Divine guidance was never the monopoly of the Semites (of this we are certain):
“Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a warner. And there never was a nation but a warner had passed among them.” (35:24)

“Of some messengers We have already told you the story; of others We have not – and to Moses God spoke directly.” (4:164)

Certain hadith (though they are weak in their chain of transmission) mention over a 100 thousand guides sent to all of mankind. It may be possible that men like Confucius, Zoroaster, the Buddha, Aristotle, etc. might have been prophets to their people. We just don’t know for sure, nor are we confident that everything transmitted from them is accurate or sound – it may have easily been corrupted over time. Africans, Europeans, Native Americans, Aboriginals, etc. all had prophets sent to them – their message was either lost or massively diluted.

One may not accept or even like this narrative, but this is ultimately the narrative that the religion puts forward.

I was going to add that Neocons also support open borders, but then I realized that they are in the same category as “cucked right”

Actually, I was covering them with "Zionists." "Cucked right" is more in "steppin and fetchin for the Zionists" territory.

If a religious education program for women even *exists*, it will tend to focus on the importance of wearing a head scarf, and covering one’s feet. Sometimes it will stress how a woman’s prayer is “better” for her at home – so why are all of you ladies here for Juuma every Friday?

See, now this is good. It answers one of my questions about Islam - can I do the prayers at home? Because being dragged away to a mosque 5 times a friggin' day was really looking like one of the big down sides of conversion. If I can do the prayers at home, I can just skip it; if anyone else is in the house, I can just lock myself in a room for however long, five times a day, blaring prayer music (so nobody can hear the music I'm blasting on my headphones), and voila, I'm a devout Muslim!

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is. Know the doctrines when questioned, fine. Mouth the proper pieties occasionally, fine. Keep the booze locked away in a secret stash, fine (never been a big boozer anyway, but still). But the whole having to rub elbows with real Muslims on a constant basis, having to go to a mosque five times a day, all that stuff is pretty much a deal-breaker.

P.S., how viable would a de-Arabification effort be in Islam? E.g., insisting on saying "peace" (or whatever salaam means) instead of "salaam"? Just curious. The Arabified parts of Islam strike me as humiliating to non-Arabs. In a conversion scenario, I'd try to find a way to dump them if I could.

One thing though…

My thing is figuring out how viable faking Islam is.

Why would you want to – it’s not like we live in the time of the Ottomans where you could try to enter the power structure or something. Or that you live in a Muslim country so you can fake it to get the advantages of being part of the majority. What advantage do you have – other than being a pet project of the liberal Left? I can’t think of a single convert that didn’t have problems with either ; family, friends, or job – or all three.

As I read the text above, I kept in mind whether the author would, at least in passing, address the evil role the west has played in fomenting the creation of such groups.

Wikipedia says;

“According to a graph by U.S. State Department, terrorist attacks have escalated worldwide since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq…..”

Does the author make any mention of the state sponsored terrorism of the evil empire (which includes its equally evil minions)? Not in the least… at least not here.

Tally up the number of innocents the evil empire has slaughtered around the world, directly and indirectly, through its awesome instruments of death, and compare it against the terrorism of others, such as the Islamists.

It is mind boggling how the world lets the evil empire walk away scot-free with so much bloodshed, and in fact showers it with even more awe and adulation. A mind-bending fact which deserves a Ripley’s badge.

I believe it is one of your eminent thinkers who stated the obvious; “Every action…”? Yeah? Thankfully, the Islamists have no capacity for the “equal” part. Thankfully because, it would be horrible to see Muslims commit that level of satanic evil; just one example being, half a million children starved to death is seen as, “the price is worth it.”

The witch who said that is respected as a “states-person,” by the western civilisation.*spit* Indeed, the list of such western “states-persons” is long.

Yes, the Saudis follow a very strict form of Islam. So? Look at what is happening in India with their batshit crazy “cow-protectors,” where human life is of less value than a cow. How about the Jews and their stolen “Jewish” homeland, and treatment meted to their indigenous people? Isn’t all that terrorism?

To imply that Wahhabism is the only reason for all Islamist terrorism is simply disingenuous. This kind of thinking does not address core reasons, and will ensure that such conflict will continue for ages to come.

Well, if you want to play the game, it's very easy to "become" Muslim - you go and make shahadah in front of the community. Actually, you don't even have to do that. You can just say, "I'm Muslim" and you're in - people simply assume you are the real deal. In fact, we aren't supposed to inquire about sincerity in the matter - we simply take it for what it's worth. God judges what's in the hearts.

One can fool everyone – except the One that counts the most. Insincerity and showing off for others is called riyyah and is a sin. The Master of all that exists does not accept scraps off the table:

Yeah I'm taking an atheist's approach here. The day of judgment doesn't concern me (if the Big Guy can't take a joke, I don't want to hang out with him anyway).

Why would you want to

I like to keep my options open.

Hey Svigor,

Well, if you want to play the game, it’s very easy to “become” Muslim – you go and make shahadah in front of the community. Actually, you don’t even have to do that. You can just say, “I’m Muslim” and you’re in – people simply assume you are the real deal. In fact, we aren’t supposed to inquire about sincerity in the matter – we simply take it for what it’s worth. God judges what’s in the hearts.

On earth, it was Sunni insurgents who inflicted well over 90% of casualties on US troops. You are stupid and crazy.

McMaster’s unit on the Syria- iraq border was under attack from cat’s paws of Assad then undisputed ruler of Syria , and he must be really clever to be in the position he is in now having lost half his inherited realm.

Most of the killings of US troops in Iraq were not by Iranian proxies; true, but that STILL means hundreds of US troops were killed by the Iraqi Shia groups acting as a cat’s paw of IRAN. How sane and intelligent of Iran to provoke the US.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter